[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Moratorium Called on Genetically Modified Foods
I don't understand what you mean I only responded to a post you made I
thought that is how it is done. you give your argument and I tell what I
think . I did not forge your name to anything. I just quoted your message
and put in my message I did not intend anyone to think you said what I said.
Just the same way you quoted my message just now. I always sign my email
and people can see I sent it unless something went wrong I always sign my
email . Look at this message here. My name is right above your name at the
bottome of this message but I know you did not want anyone to think I signed
it. I am sorry if I wronged you but your message right before mine made it
clear where you stood and I was trying to add my 2 cents. I was not making
you the signatory of anything .Im sorry if it looked that way. If anyone on
this list thinks these quotes are from Ralph Blanchfield I'm sorry for the
misunderstanding they were quotes from that homepage to which we were
talking about. Let me make one thing perfectly clear Ralph Blanchfield only
sign his responces this responce was mine. Sorry Ralph
10:23 PM 8/3/96 GMT, J Ralph Blanchfield wrote:
>Sal
>
>You have sent the message below to me.
>
>If you have sent it only to me, I shall regard it as a stupid childish
>prank on your part to make it appear that I am the signatory of the
>contents.
>
>But if you have sent it also to anyone else, then you have carried out
>a criminal act -- in effect you have dishonestly forged my signature
>to your message.
>
>I require to know whether you have sent it to anyone else. If you
>have, I require an apology from you, and an assurance that you have
>notified all such persons that the message is yours and that you had
>wrongly appended my name to it.
>
>Ralph
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:48:14 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
>
>>.
>>>.I don't think the folks commenting have read A SCIENCE-BASED,
>>PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH TO THE
>> LABELING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS.
>> here are some quotes
>> " Those who wish to minimize to the public the revolutionary nature of
>>recombinant DNA techniques
>> generally claim that they are a part of a continuum of methods that can
>>be used to bring about genetic
>> improvements in food source organisms. On this basis, they argue that
>>it would be inappropriate to subject
>> genetically engineered foods to additional regulatory scrutiny or to
>>require these foods to be labeled as
>> genetically engineered. However, a systematic and scientific comparison
>>of recombinant DNA technologies
>> and other methods makes it clear that they are not part of a continuum.
>>
>> It is true that the goals of recombinant DNA methodologies are the same
>>as those of traditional breeding
>> methods, namely, the development of new varieties of food source
>>organisms with improved characteristics.
>> However, recombinant DNA techniques stand by themselves as a distinct
>>and revolutionary technology for
>> accomplishing these goals.Through this powerful technology, genetic
>>information can be transferred between species that would never
>> exchange information under natural conditions or under traditional
>>breeding regimes. For instance,
>> recombinant DNA methods have made it possible to transfer the gene
>>encoding the flounder antifreeze
>> protein into tomatoes, in hopes of increasing resistance to freezing.
>>Natural genetic and reproductive
>> boundaries normally prevent such exchanges, and even prevent crosses
>>between close relatives such as the
>> tomato, the potato, and the eggplant.
>>
>> Like traditional breeding methods, the other methods listed in the US
>>Discussion Paper-cross-hybridization,
>> embryo rescue, and somaclonal variation-do not involve the introduction
>>of new genetic information into the
>> gene pool of the food-producing organism. The first of these is a
>>variation on traditional breeding methods,
>> the second is a cell culture-based method for generating many
>>genetically identical plants from a single elite
>> specimen, and the third is a variation on this approach.
>>
>> Because recombinant DNA techniques introduce new genetic information
>>into the gene pool, they do not
>> exist on a continuum with these other methods but are of a distinctly
>>different character and should be
>> treated separately.>
>>.
>> Labeling provides consumers with knowledge upon which to base rational
choices
>> regarding the foods they eat, and labeling provides the industry and
>>regulators with a safety net that will
>> allow them to quickly trace problems that arise with genetically
>>engineered foods, thereby minimizing
>> liability. Moreover, in the long run, if genetically engineered foods
>>offer in practice the benefits that industry
>> invisions, the label will become a sign of quality, which will allow
>>industry to demand a premium for these
>> products.Applications of genetic engineering that introduce animal
>>genes into plants raise ethical and religious
>> concerns with certain segments of the population in that the use of
>>foods, and possibly medicines, produced
>> by such plants can be in conflict with culturally- religiously- and
>>ethically-based dietary guidelines.
>>The U S government's controversial decision that special labeling of milk
>>derived from cows that had
>> been treated with recombinant bGH is not required under current food
>>labeling laws is likely to be changed
>> as part of the FDA review of the existing food labeling policy, since
>>use of rbGH in dairy herds
>> compromises milk quality in measurable ways. That is, use of rbGH leads
>>to material changes in milk. When
>> industry blocked the mandatory labeling of milk containing rbGH, the
>>public implemented voluntary reverse
>> labeling. That is, labeling of milk produced by cows that were not
>>treated with rbGH. The biotechnology
>> industry and the FDA attempted to suppress the voluntary labeling of
>>rbGH-free milk, but under strong
>> pressure from the public those efforts failed.
>>Labeling would be nice so that those that don't want to partake in this
>>abomanation of nature can chose.n addition to health risks, the production
>>of genetically engineered foods can, in many cases, pose risks
>> to the environment. They can lead to the increased use of harmful
>>agrochemicals, including toxic and
>> carcinogenic herbicides. Their use can also result in genetic
>>pollution, in which genetically engineered genes
>> enter the gene pools of wild plants by cross-pollination. These
>>manipulated genes can have unanticipated
>> effects on the wild plant, and consequently unintended harmful effects
>>on the ecosystem.
>>
>> Many individuals who are concerned about these environmental dangers
>>may wish to avoid purchasing
>> genetically engineered foods. The labeling of genetically engineered
>>foods will allow them to exercise their
>> right to choice in this area.
>>
>>
>>It would not hurt to check out
>>http://www.natural-law.org/issues/genetics/precautionary_genetics.html#36.
>>lots of good information.
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>Ralph
>>>
>>>******************************************************************
>>>J Ralph Blanchfield
>>>Food Science, Food Technology & Food Law Consultant
>>>Chair, IFST Member Relations & Services Committee
>>>Web Editor, Institute of Food Science & Technology
>>>IFST Web address: http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/
>>>******************************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>Sals@rain.org
>>also an organic farmers web page at
>>http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html
>>
>
>******************************************************************
>J Ralph Blanchfield
>Food Science, Food Technology & Food Law Consultant
>Chair, IFST Member Relations & Services Committee
>Web Editor, Institute of Food Science & Technology
>IFST Web address: http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/
>******************************************************************
>
>
http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html
a homepage for organic farmers
sals@rain.org